Part 7 - A Case for Joseph Smith; A Case Against Polygamy

“Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith never
taught polygamy, and there was no revelation on polygamy or celestial marriage,
or anything of the kind. The church was governed entirely as a monogamy church
from 1832, at the time I became connected with it, up to the time of Joseph
Smith’s death.” – John Taylor (not the apostle)

“An intelligent friend, who called
upon us this morning, has just returned from a visit to Nauvoo and the Mormons .
. . . He believes—just as we do—that they have been grossly misunderstood and
shamefully libeled . . . . [I]t is a faith which they say encourages no vice,
nor immorality, nor departure from established laws and usages; neither
polygamy, nor promiscuous intercourse, nor community of property.”– Times and Seasons 2 [October 15,
1841]: 580.

Testimony During the Temple Lot Case

Emma Smith, as the wife of the Prophet,
was supplied money at Joseph’s office by both Joseph and High Priest James
Whitehead, who was Joseph’s private secretary. Whitehead had been keeping records for Joseph
for over two years when the Prophet was killed. Whitehead was working in Joseph’s office on
the day of the assassination. He
evidently did not turn Joseph’s private records over to the Twelve until 1847,
three years later, at Winter Quarters.

“I was there in
his office, as his private secretary, at the time he was killed. I was in his office on that day, and was
keeping the books at that time.

Joseph Smith had
one wife and her name was Emma . . . . I never heard anybody claim, except Emma
Smith, that she was the wife of Joseph Smith. There was never any woman who came to me, or
Joseph Smith in my presence, during the time of my employment as his private
secretary, for money, claiming that she was the wife of Joseph Smith, except
his wife Emma.

There was no
entry of that kind ever made on the books, of money paid by me or by him
[Joseph] to any woman claiming to be his wife, except Emma.”The Temple Lot Case, 476 (emphasis added).

Teacher John Taylor (not the LDS
President) was one of those who investigated Dr. Bennett and Francis
Higbee.He testified:

“I held the
position of teacher in the original church from September, 1832, until Joseph
Smith’s death in 1844. I performed the duties of teacher from the time I went
to Nauvoo until 1844. We had our bounds set off for us,—two teachers to each
ward to look after the members in the ward, to see that no backbiting, or evil
speaking, or iniquity was practiced, and see that all members of the church did
their duties.

It was my
mission to teach and instruct from the Book of Covenants, and the Book of
Mormon, and the New Testament. We went together from house to house and visited
every house . . . . It was our duty in case we found anybody with more wives than one to
report them to the President of the Teachers’ Quorum.There were twenty-four in the Teachers’
Quorum.It was an organized quorum, and
our instructions were if we found any case of that kind to report it to the
President of the Teachers’ Quorum, and the president would report them to Hyrum
Smith.That was the instruction that
Brother Hyrum Smith gave in the quorum. We were not to report these alone [only], but
any other misdemeanor that we found in our wards, and they were all reported
alike to the President of the Quorum.

. . . It
was about that time that John C. Bennett’s secret wife system came to be heard
of, and it was talked around that there was such a thing as that; and
that was the reason that the instructions were given us, for [we] were told to
search it out and find what there was to it if we could. That was the way it was, and so I got after
him [Bennett], and followed him, and saw him go into a house that did not have
a very good reputation. I followed him . . . . And one evening I traced him and
saw him go right into the house. During
the time that I was a teacher from 1832 up to 1844, there was no rule or law of
the original church that permitted the practice or principle of polygamy . . . .
after I reported John C. Bennett there was action taken on his case. He was cut
off from the church for that offense . . . . Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith
never taught polygamy, and there was no revelation on polygamy or celestial
marriage, or anything of the kind. The church was governed entirely as a
monogamy church from 1832, at the time I became connected with it, up to the
time of Joseph Smith’s death.

There was a man
by the name of [Hiram] Brown that taught that doctrine. He was notified by the church authorities
[both Joseph and Hyrum], tried, and cut off from the church . . . . There was
another man by the name of Durfy who went to La Harpe, Illinois [in northeast
Hancock, County], and he told the people that he thought the time would come
when they would practice polygamy, or the same doctrine with reference to
plural wives that David and Solomon did. That was what Durfy taught. That was reported to Hyrum Smith, and Hyrum
sat on a well curb and wrote a notice to him that such a doctrine was not to be
taught in the church. I saw that letter,
and it was a severe rebuke . . . .

The letter I
referred to . . . is a letter that Hyrum Smith wrote and delivered to Mr.
Hewitt, to take to those brethren out where this man [Durfy] was preaching this
doctrine, or telling the people that the doctrine of plural marriage would
sometime be taught in the church. I saw
the letter at the time it was read to me. I saw the handwriting, but I did not read it
myself. The letter was read to me. Mr. Hewitt read it to me, and I saw the
writing, the same as if you had a letter opened there and I should see it. I saw the writing when Mr. Hewitt was reading
it to me. The full name of the man who
read it was Richard Hewitt. I don’t know
whose handwriting the letter was in. Mr. Hewitt said it was Hyrum Smith’s
handwriting. He told me that Hyrum Smith
wrote it and gave it to him.”Temple Lot
Case, 190–191, 192–193, Abstract of Evidence, 190–191 (emphasis added).

John Taylor’s testimony further
corroborates the claim that Hyrum Smith was leading an effort to eliminate
polygamy from the Church.

Other Newspaper Confirms – No Polygamy

An article from the St. Louis, Missouri, Atlas was republished in the Times and Seasons. It read:

“An intelligent
friend, who called upon us this morning, has just returned from a visit to
Nauvoo and the Mormons . . . . He believes—just as we do—that they have been
grossly misunderstood and shamefully libeled . . . . [I]t is a faith which they
say encourages no vice, nor immorality, nor departure from established laws and
usages; neither polygamy, nor promiscuous intercourse, nor community of
property.”Times and Seasons 2
[October 15, 1841]: 580.

The Affidavit of Sarah Miller Proves that Dr. Bennett and
Higbee Were Spreading the Idea that Joseph Smith Revealed Polygamy

Like a cancer, Dr. John Bennett and
others had taught others in the Church that Joseph Smith had revealed
polygamy.Sarah Miller testified to the
following (not published until 1844):

“Nauvoo, May
24th, 1842.

Some two or
three weeks since, in consequence of brother Joseph Smith’s teachings to the
singers, I began to be alarmed concerning myself, and certain teachings which I
had received from Chauncey L. Higbee, and questioned him (Higbee) about his
teaching, for I was pretty well persuaded from Joseph’s public teachings that
Chauncey had been telling falsehoods; but Chauncey said that Joseph now taught
as he did through necessity, on account of the prejudice of the people, and his
own family particularly [Emma], as they had not become believers in the
doctrine.

I then become
satisfied that all of Chauncey’s teaching had been false, and that he had never
been authorized by any one in authority to make any such communication to me. Chauncey L. Higbee’s teaching and conduct were
as follows. When he first came to my
house soon after the special conference this spring, Chauncey commenced joking
me about my getting married, and wanted to know how long it had been since my
husband died, and soon removed his seat near me; and began his seducing
insinuations by saying it was no harm to have sexual intercourse with women if
they would keep it to themselves, and continued to urge me to yield to his
desires, and urged me vehemently, and said he and Joseph were good friends, and
he
[Joseph] teaches me this doctrine, and allows me such privileges, and there is
no harm in it and Joseph Smith says so.

I told him I did
not believe it, and had heard no such teaching from Joseph, nor from the stand
[the place where preaching services were held at Nauvoo], but that it was
wicked to commit adultery, &c. Chauncey said that did not mean single
women, but married women; and continued to press his instructions and arguments
until after dark, and until I was inclined to believe, for he called God to
witness of the truth, and was so solemn and confident, I yielded to his
temptations, having received the strongest assurance from him that Joseph
approved it and would uphold me in it. He also told me that many others were
following the same course of conduct. As I still had some doubts, near the
close of our interview, I again suggested my fears that I had done wrong, and
should loose the confidence of the brethren, when he assured me that it was
right, and he would bring a witness to confirm what he had taught.

When he come
again, I still had doubts, I told him I understood he (Higbee), had recently
been baptized, and that Joseph, when he confirmed him, told him to quit all his
iniquitous practices,—Chauncey said it was not for such things that he was
baptized for, [he said] do you think I would be baptized for such a thing and
then go into it so soon again? Chauncey
Higbee, said it would never be known, I told him it might be told in bringing
forth [a child].Chauncey said there was
no danger, and that Dr. Bennet understood it, and would come and take it away,
if there was any thing.”

JOSEPH’S DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST CHAUNCY HIGBEE

The People vs.
Chauncey L. Higbee

In
an effort to further clear his name, on May 24, 1842, Joseph Smith brought a defamation
lawsuit against Chauncey Higbee in Illinois.[2]The case was eventually
thrown out for failure to appear since Joseph had to go into hiding based on
the false claims made by Dr. John C. Bennett and the attempted murder of
ex-governor Lilburn Boggs.This lawsuit,
which has since been covered up by the LDS Church, is strong evidence that
Joseph was against polygamy.Why would
Joseph Smith bring a defamation lawsuit against Higbee when Higbee would
certainly attempt to prove that Smith was condoning polygamy and a polygamist
himself (truth is the ultimate defense to a defamation lawsuit)?If Joseph was trying to keep polygamy secret,
there is no logical reason why Joseph would actively pursue a defamation claim
but would have most certainly just let the matter go.

According to Richard and Pamela
Price:“[The case] showed that Joseph
vigorously contended against that evil doctrine in private and in public.If Joseph had been guilty, he certainly would
not have sued a competent lawyer and insisted that the case be tried in
Carthage among his enemies.Would a man
with plural wives sue a lawyer – in the state of Illinois, where polygamy was a
crime at that time (see Statutes of Illinois, Criminal Code, Section 121-122)?If Joseph had been guilty, Chauncey could
have easily proven it, and no doubt Joseph would have gone to jail for that
crime.”Id. at 160.

Oliver Cowdery’s Letter Against Polygamy

Oliver Cowdery’s answer to his sister’s
letter inquiring into the truth of polygamy demonstrated his patent opposition
to polygamy. The letter evinces that Oliver
neither knew of the supposed 1831 revelation, nor any officially sanctioned
polygamy in the Church prior to 1846. Oliver wrote:

“TIFFIN, Seneca
County, Ohio,
July 24,1846.

Brother Daniel
and Sister Phoebe:

Phoebe’s letter
mailed at Montrose [Iowa] on the 2nd of this month was received . . . .

Now, Brother
Daniel and Sister Phoebe, what will you do? Has Sister Phoebe written us the truth? and if
so, will you venture with your little ones, into the toil and fatigue of a long
journey [to the West], and that for the sake of finding a resting place when
you know of miseries of such magnitude as have, as will, and as must rend
asunder the tenderest and holiest ties of domestic life? I can hardly think it possible, that you have
written us the truth [about polygamy], that though there may be individuals who
are guilty
of the iniquities spoken of,—yet no such practice can be preached or
adhered to, as a public doctrine. Such
may do for the followers of Mahomet; it may have done some thousands of years
ago; but no people, professing to be governed by the pure and holy principles of
the Lord Jesus, can hold up their heads before the world at this distance of
time, and be guilty of such folly—such wrong—such abomination. It will blast, like a mildew, their fairest
prospects, and lay the axe at the root of the tree of their future happiness.

You would like
to know whether we are calculating to come on and emigrate to California.On this subject everything depends upon
circumstances . . . . We do not feel to say or do anything to discourage you
from going, if you think it best to do so. We know, in part, how you are situated.Out of the church, you have few, or no
friends, and very little, or no society—in it you have both, . . . [T]hough the
journey is frequently attended with toil, yet a bright future has been seen in
the distance, if right counsels were given, and a departure in no way from the
original faith, in no instance, countenanced. Of what that doctrine and faith is, and was, I
ought to know, and further it does not become me now to speak . . . . May the
Lord have mercy on you, and protect and spare you.

Truly your
brother and friend,
Oliver Cowdery.”

The Saints’ Herald 55 [January 15,
1908]: 56–57.

How to Recognize a False Angel

Joseph Smith revealed a test to determine
whether a person was being visited by a false angel.According to Joseph, if there was any
statement within the message delivered which contradicted a former revelation
which was from God, that message, and the angel who brought it, are from Satan.

Joseph Smith wrote:

“There have also
been ministering angels in the church which were of satan appearing as an angel
of light:— A sister in the State of New York had a vision who said it was told
her that if she would go to a certain place in the woods an angel would appear
to her,— she went at the appointed time and saw a glorious personage descending
arrayed in white . . . he commenced and told her to fear God and said that her
husband was called to do great things, but that he must not go more than one
hundred miles from home or he would not return; whereas God had called him to
go to the ends of the earth; and he has since been more than one thousand miles
from home, and is yet alive. Many true things were spoken by this personage and
many things that were false.—How it may be asked was this known to be a
bad angel? . . . by his contradicting a former revelation.” Times and Seasons 3 [April 1, 1842]: 747
(emphasis added).

Section 132 entirely contradicts the
revelation of former D&C 101 and the Book of Mormon.For example, Section 132:1 states that David
and Solomon were justified in having many wives and concubines:

“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto
you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know
and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle
and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines . . .”

In contrast Jacob 1:24 states:“Behold, David and Solomon
truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable
before me, saith the Lord.”

If Joseph, was engaged in polygamy at this time as alleged
by the LDS Church, then Joseph was condoning, preaching, and violating the laws
of the land as polygamy was illegal at that time.Did Joseph have a secret double standard that
allowed the LDS Church to proclaim its adherence to the law while it secretly
violated the law? – Nonsense.

Joseph Was Murdered as a Result of the Polygamous Lie

When discussing whether Joseph Smith revealed polygamy many
members quickly disregard the above facts as just simple anti-Mormon
distortions.What is striking about this
position is how the LDS Church’s position on the murder of Joseph Smith falls
squarely within the anti-Mormon story – a story that originated with the
Joseph’s worse enemy Dr. John Bennett.

According to the official history of the LDS Church, Joseph
was imprisoned after Joseph, as the mayor of Nauvoo, voted on June 10, 1844 to
declare the Nauvoo Expositor a public
nuisance for publishing “libelous and slanderous character” papers and ordered
the press destroyed.The council also
discussed the conspiracy of “the Laws, Higbees, and Foster” to destroy
Joseph.History of the Church,vol. VI (1912), p. 432 (“The Council passed an ordinance declaring the Nauvoo
Expositor a nuisance, and also issued an order to me to abate the said
nuisance.I immediately ordered the
Marshall to destroy it without delay.” – Joseph Smith).Joseph was subsequently incarcerated on June
25, 1844 in Carthage, Illinois, as a result of his role in the destruction of
the Nauvoo Expositor.Joseph was acquitted of the charges but then
was continued to be held for inciting a riot.He was murdered on June 27, 1844. With respect to the Nauvoo Expositor incident, Emma Smith said in an interview with Edmund C. Briggs:

“I never had any reason to oppose him, for we were always on the best of terms ourselves, but he allowed some others to persuade him in some measures against his will, and those things I opposed. He was opposed to the destroying of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, but the council overruled him by vote and he told them they were the cause of its destruction, but he would be held personally responsible for it; and I often heard Joseph contend against measures in council, and sometimes he would yield to them.”

Joseph’s alleged actions against the Nauvoo Expositor are not disputed.But the widely-believed reasons underlying Joseph’s actions are
disputed.What were the severe
allegations of the Nauvoo Expositor
that led Joseph Smith to acquiesce to its destruction?According to Wikipedia:

The paper’s criticism of Smith was
focused on three main points: (1) the opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had become a fallen prophet
because of his introduction of plural marriage, exaltation
and other controversial doctrines; (2) the opinion that as church president
and Nauvoo mayor, Smith held too much power and desired to create a theocracy . . .and (3) the belief that Smith was corrupting
young women by forcing, coercing or introducing them to the practice of plural
marriage.

In other words, Joseph was accused of being a fallen prophet
because Joseph was allegedly practicing polygamy with many women, including
young women.These anti-Mormon accusations
are not inordinately controversial if Joseph was truly such a polygamous.If Joseph was having polygamous sexual
relations with girls as young as fourteen, why would Joseph so vehemently
denounce and acquiesce to the the destruction of the newspaper based on these
allegations?

Although the murder of Joseph Smith is being rewritten by
the LDS Church (discussed below) into something more martyrdom like, apologists
of the LDS Church and anti-Mormons alike claim that Joseph allegedly supported the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor in order to protect the secrecy of the Church’s
hidden polygamous doctrine?But the secret was out. How would
the destruction of the newspaper after publication protect a secret?

Now, the LDS Church claims that Joseph was killed because of
his testimony of Jesus Christ[3]
and sealed his testimony of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants
with his blood (see D&C 135:1)
and died a martyr.

The LDS Church is incorrect.Joseph was murdered based on the false accusations of those closest to
him.What’s more, the mob attacked
Joseph believing, as claimed by Dr. Bennett, et al., that Joseph was
instituting a Mormon harem with the young women in their communities.

The June 27, 1844 mob did not attack Joseph because
of the Book of Mormon.The mob did not
attack Joseph because of Joseph’s testimony of Jesus Christ.The mob did not attack Joseph because
Joseph claimed to have direct communications with God.The mob murdered
Joseph because they believed he was a lecherous fiend preying on
young girls who burned the Nauvoo
Expositor in order to cover up the truth, and was now seeking to establish
this polygamous theocracy in their communities.

If you were alive in 1844 and believed the allegations
against Joseph (as the LDS Church still continues to hold as the truth), based
on the testimony of Dr. Bennett and William Law, and as secretly practiced by
Brigham Young et al., is it truly inconceivable that you would not have also
been party to or at least sanctioned the actions of the mob?

However, doesn’t it make much more sense that Joseph's anger towards the Nauvoo Expositor
was because it published an absolute lie that Joseph was engaging in polygamy even with
young girls.Consider your own response
to a false vicious attack on your morality by a local newspaper under similar
circumstances and in 1844.

If Joseph Smith was innocent of polygamy as argued herein,
his murder becomes even more sickening.Only a month earlier, Joseph had proclaimed his innocence of
polygamy.Yet the rumors continued to
spread, lead mostly by Bennett, William Law (who wanted the leadership of the
Church), the Higbees, and Brigham Young.The whole episode, including the mob that murdered Joseph Smith,
originated as an opposition to a beguiled public who believed the lies that
Joseph was an adulterous and polygamous devil.In short, Joseph was killed because of the polygamous lie that is now
protected by the LDS Church.Now ask
yourself, who is on the side of Joseph Smith?

[2]Joseph’s affidavit read:“Before me, Ebenezer Robinson, one of the
Justices of the Peace for said county personally came Joseph Smith, who, being
duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that at sundry times, in the
City of Nauvoo, county aforesaid, one Chancy L. Higbee has slandered and defamed the
character of the said Joseph Smith, and also the character of Emma
Smith, his wife, in using their names, the more readily to accomplish his
purpose in seducing certain females, and further this deponont saith not. Sworn to, and subscribed before me, in the
county aforesaid, this 24th day of May A.D. 1842. E. Robinson J. P.”(Emphasis added).

1 comment:

You write: "However, doesn’t it make much more sense that Joseph's anger towards the Nauvoo Expositor was because it published an absolute lie that Joseph was engaging in polygamy even with young girls. Consider your own response to a false vicious attack on your morality by a local newspaper under similar circumstances and in 1844." But previously you said, "He was opposed to the destroying of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, but the council overruled him by vote and he told them they were the cause of its destruction, but he would be held personally responsible for it; and I often heard Joseph contend against measures in council, and sometimes he would yield to them.”Was Joseph really angry at the publisher of the Nauvoo Expositer and wanted to destroy it, or was it the members of the council who pressed for its destruction? Did members of the council want it destroyed to stir up anger against Joseph? Did they want it destroyed because they were afraid that if it continued pursuing the roots of polygamy they were in danger of being exposed? For example, was John Taylor afraid further probing or investigation would reveal his secret works?

Benjamin R. Horton, Attorney

A homeschooling father of three children and happily married in Salt Lake County, Utah, Benjamin Horton is a gun-toting anarcho-capitalist attorney who loves mountain biking, freedom, conspiracies, UFOs, diet Mountain Dew, and Kenpo Karate.